Egglin T K, Dickey K W, Rosenblatt M, Pollak J S
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520-8042, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 May;164(5):1259-64. doi: 10.2214/ajr.164.5.7717243.
Recent reports suggest that both the nature of intravascular foreign bodies and the tools available to retrieve them have changed substantially in the past decade. We reviewed our recent experience with percutaneous retrieval of intravascular foreign bodies to determine the efficacy and safety of the procedure using currently available devices.
Between 1990 and 1994, we attempted retrieval of 35 intravascular foreign bodies in 32 patients. Twelve patients (38%), including all five with intraarterial foreign bodies, were treated for complications of transcatheter interventional procedures that resulted in embolization of seven coils, four intravascular stents, an inferior vena cava filter, and a valvuloplasty balloon fragment. From procedure records, we reviewed the types of retrieval devices and methods used; the medical record was studied to determine the occurrence and treatment of any procedure-related complications.
Retrieval was successful in 31 (97%) of 32 patients. All five intraarterial and 29 of 30 IV objects were removed. Nitinol goose-neck snares were used in 28 of 32 cases, but more than one retrieval system was required in eight cases (25%), often using grasping forceps, tip-deflecting wires, or stone baskets to move the foreign body into a more favorable position for snaring. In the single failure, the tip of a largely extravascular catheter fragment lay in a venous valve and could not be snared in a patient who refused surgery. Two of five patients with arterial foreign bodies suffered occlusive arterial spasm, reversible with local administration of nitroglycerine. Two large objects were repositioned to the femoral vein and removed by surgical cutdown. No other procedural complications occurred, and none of the patients required additional compression, transfusion, or surgical intervention.
We conclude that use of preformed nitinol goose-neck snares facilitates retrieval of intravascular foreign bodies in most cases, although interventional radiologists must be familiar with a variety of techniques to deal with the expanding spectrum of foreign bodies currently encountered.
近期报告表明,在过去十年中,血管内异物的性质以及用于取出异物的工具都发生了显著变化。我们回顾了近期经皮取出血管内异物的经验,以确定使用现有设备进行该操作的有效性和安全性。
1990年至1994年间,我们尝试为32例患者取出35个血管内异物。12例患者(38%),包括所有5例动脉内有异物的患者,因经导管介入操作的并发症接受治疗,这些并发症导致7个线圈、4个血管内支架、1个下腔静脉滤器和1个瓣膜成形术球囊碎片发生栓塞。从操作记录中,我们回顾了所使用的取出装置和方法类型;研究病历以确定任何与操作相关并发症的发生情况和治疗方法。
32例患者中有31例(97%)成功取出异物。5个动脉内异物和30个静脉内异物中的29个被取出。32例中有28例使用了镍钛合金鹅颈圈套器,但8例(25%)需要不止一种取出系统,常使用抓取钳、尖端偏转导丝或石篮将异物移至更有利于圈套的位置。在唯一的失败案例中,一个大部分位于血管外的导管碎片尖端位于静脉瓣膜处,在一名拒绝手术的患者中无法被圈套。5例动脉内有异物的患者中有2例发生闭塞性动脉痉挛,局部应用硝酸甘油后可逆转。2个大的异物被重新定位至股静脉并通过外科切开取出。未发生其他操作并发症,且无一例患者需要额外的压迫、输血或手术干预。
我们得出结论,尽管介入放射科医生必须熟悉各种技术以应对当前遇到的越来越多的异物类型,但在大多数情况下,使用预制的镍钛合金鹅颈圈套器有助于取出血管内异物。